Mass Combat Rules Constraints

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Thaluikhain
King
Posts: 6153
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:30 pm

Post by Thaluikhain »

mlangsdorf wrote:You do understand that the units are entirely abstract and we're not putting minis for each unit on the board?
Yes. Though I don't see why that'd make a difference, same as you can run a party vs a band of orcs with or without minis.
mlangsdorf wrote:Also, the Exalted solution that you're proposing where units are suits of armor worn by PCs doesn't work at all.
Why not? Not that I'm saying I disagree with you there, just wondering what and why things would go wrong. Or rather, more wrong than other approaches. Turning units into bonuses or abilities for PCs doesn't seem a good approach, but, IMHO, it seems better than the other way around, as it'd allow them to keep playing.

Way back when, I remember playing in the FF RPG, where the PCs join a battle and get to be modifiers to someone else's dice rolling, and there was an outcry from all the players when they heard that, IIRC. Even a bad system seems better than that sort of thing. Admittedly the character in charge in that game was a DMPC, IIRC though.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

deaddmwalking wrote:Sure, having 'objectives' that help their army do better is good design. Determining 'how much better' should include elements of chance (ie die rolls). There has to be an underlying system for those die rolls to mean anything.
The issue here - and this probably answers Dimmy's tangent and bewilderment - is that the Den has always had a presumption that there is an inherently adversarial relationship between the DM and the players, and that to ensure fair play a system must be in place to basically legislate fair play into the game.

In reality most DMs know that they will "lose" every single encounter to the PCs because otherwise the campaign ends with a TPK. Hence the DM is more often than not a collaborative rather than adversarial agent at the play table; and that the context of the situation is more important than any specific rules.

Indeed in most cases the best RPG rules are in fact those that gives guidelines and examples for the DM and players to get ideas from. The point of having 20 different die roll modifier for army command in the book isn't the expectation that they'd be used - but rather the DM or party may browse through those 20 different entries and get ideas on how actual armies are actually run.

Again there nothing wrong with wanting to play wargames. I almost certainly play more wargames than most members of the Den. I am not telling people to not try to combine an RPG and a wargame if they really want to.

But a wargame is also a very, very different beast from an RPG; which is why I am doubtful that it will actually appeal to the players even if the game turns out to be balanced. A balanced game is not synonymous with a fun game, and there is very often a gulf between what the players expect and what the rules actually do.

Regardless, I've said my piece and the tired old Den hubris is kicking in. Good luck on the latest attempt to "solve" a RPG system problem where you will yet again collaboratively create a solution that wows the RPG world and finally get widespread appeal. :roll:
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Zinegata wrote:The issue here - and this probably answers Dimmy's tangent and bewilderment - is that the Den has always had a presumption that there is an inherently adversarial relationship between the DM and the players, and that to ensure fair play a system must be in place to basically legislate fair play into the game.
No.

The point is that "MC makes something up" isn't a game at all. It's somebody telling you a story. It doesn't matter if they are in an adversarial or supportive role or some combination thereof, to the extent that the result of an action is just "The MC makes something up" you aren't actually playing a game.

We could narrate how we are attacking Ogres with swords and then have the MC narrate our hits and misses according to their whim, but we don't. We don't do that because that's obviously just magical teaparty. Suggesting that the course of the battle should just be narrated is exactly that. It's a very weird thing to suggest or defend, because it's simply the complete abdication of designing or playing a game.

-Username17
Niles
Apprentice
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:58 am

Post by Niles »

If people really need more information on mlangsdorf's campaign, I'm just going to put up these links to his blog posts on the subject and his campaign wiki.
mlangsdorf
Master
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:12 pm

Post by mlangsdorf »

Uh, thanks, Niles, I guess?

Anyway. The campaign is currently on hiatus while we do some playtesting for another project, and will continue on a slower schedule in 2018 as we alternate with another game. I haven't updated the blog because I got crazy busy at work over the summer and fell out of the habit, but the wiki is mostly up to date through all 41 sessions.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

*Gasp*

Frank is right.

But it's more than that. This isn't about making a 'fair' wargame. In a typical wargame, bot sides show up with balanced forces whether through point totals or assigned starting forces (army list) or maybe just different objectives (ie, one side is smaller but 'wins' by succeeding on a raid). There are all kinds of different ways of running wargames, but they all generally start with the idea that either side could win.

In an RPG, we'd expect the players (like any real general) to try to create a situation where they can't lose. Even if the decision is effectively known in advance, there's still an advantage to knowing to what degree you were successful.

In the Lord of the Rings there were three major battles in short order - Helm's Deep, the Siege of Minas Tirith and the battle at the Gates of Mordor. While the third was more or less a distraction, the number of surviving troops from the first battle had an impact on the second battle.

Outside of that, players tend to get attached to 'pets' which can be units of an army. When their formation survives three separate engagements, they tend to get attached. A lot of an RPG comes from those types of emotional attachments players form and having a system to determine the success or failure becomes important - just like with their own character. Even if the DM is a benevolent dictator, players want to succeed or fail on their own merits. This is true whether it is for their character or their army.
-This space intentionally left blank
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

I'm somehow of the suspicion that the most succinct treatise on warfare, especially "total warfare" (i.e. how it impacts economy/ecology of nations engaging in it), might have some good ideas to mine.

https://www.sonshi.com/original-the-art ... giles.html

However parsing the text (as little as it is compared to Clauswitz's notes turned incomplete book, it's not like it's a lot of text); and then turning it into game-useable mechanics takes more time.

Right now, I'm seeing concepts like


Planning, Diplomacy & Espionage

Strategic War, Rulership, Statedom
-If the army is involved in a long campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice

Tactical War, Generalship, Deceiving your troops into succeeding
-"If ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, divide them; if equal, be able to fight them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them."

Other repeating themes: Deception; Speed, Harass active enemies, treat captured enemies well.

Chapters:
  1. Calculations
    [01.01] Warfare is important to a nation. It is a matter of life and death. It is the way to survival or to destruction. So study it.

    [01.02] Study the five factors of warfare: Way, Heaven, Ground, General, and Law. Calculate your strength in each and compare them to your enemy's strengths.

    [01.03] The 'Way' is the strong bond your people have with you. Whether they face certain death or hope to come out alive, they never worry about danger or betrayal.

    [01.04] 'Heaven' is dark and light, cold and hot, and the seasonal constraints. 'Ground' is high and low, far and near, obstructed and easy, wide and narrow, and dangerous and safe.

    [01.05] 'General' is wise, trustworthy, benevolent, brave, and disciplined.

    [01.06] 'Law' is organization, the chain of command, logistics, and the control of expenses.

    [01.07] Every general has heard of these five factors [Way, Heaven, Ground, General, Law]. One who heeds them will be victorious; one who does not heed them will not be victorious.

    [01.08] Therefore, calculate and compare your levels of strength in them [Way, Heaven, Ground, General, Law] to your enemy's, and determine whether you are superior.

    [01.09] Ask: Which ruler has the Way; which general has the ability; which has advantage in Heaven and Ground; which implemented Law; which army is resilient; which officers and soldiers are trained; which rewards and punishes clearly. By asking these types of questions, I know who will win and who will lose.

    [01.10] A general who listens to my principles, and applies them, will surely be victorious; keep him. A general who does not listen to my principles, and does not apply them, will surely be defeated; remove him.

    [01.11] Look for advantages when applying my principles and you will gather sufficient force to take on unforeseen situations.

    [01.12] Force is tilting the balance of power to your side by gathering advantages.

    [01.13] Warfare is the Way of deception.

    [01.14] Therefore, if able, appear unable; if active, appear inactive; if near, appear far; if far, appear near.

    [01.15] If your enemies have advantage, bait them; if they are confused, capture them; if they are numerous, prepare for them; if they are strong, avoid them; if they are angry, disturb them; if they are humble, make them haughty; if they are relaxed, toil them; if they are united, separate them.

    [01.16] Attack where your enemies are not prepared; go to where they do not expect.

    [01.17] This strategy leads to victory in warfare, so do not let the enemy see it.

    [01.18] Before doing battle, one calculates in the temple and will win, because many calculations were made; before doing battle, one calculates in the temple but will lose, because few calculations were made.

    [01.19] Many calculations mean victory; few calculations mean no victory; then how much worse when there are no calculations? From this perspective I can clearly predict victory or defeat.
  2. Doing Battle
    [02.01] Generally, the requirements of warfare are this way: One thousand four-horse chariots, one thousand leather chariots, one hundred thousand belted armor, transporting provisions one thousand kilometers, the distribution of internal and on-the-field spending, the efforts of having guests, materials such as glue and lacquer, tributes in chariots and armor, will amount to expenses of a thousand gold pieces a day.

    [02.02] Only then can one hundred thousand troops be raised.

    [02.03] When doing battle, seek a quick victory. A long battle will blunt weapons and diminish ferocity.

    [02.04] If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted."

    [02.05] If the army is involved in a long campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.

    [02.06] When weapons are blunted and ferocity diminished, strength exhausted and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

    [02.07] Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

    [02.08] Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted. No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.

    [02.09] Therefore, if one is not fully cognizant of the dangers inherent in doing battle, one cannot fully know the benefits of doing battle.

    [02.10] Those skilled in doing battle do not raise troops twice, or transport provisions three times.

    [02.11] Take equipment from home but take provisions from the enemy. Then the army will be sufficient in both equipment and provisions.

    [02.12] A nation can be impoverished by the army when it has to supply the army at great distances. When provisions are transported at great distances, the citizens will be impoverished.

    [02.13] Those in proximity to the army will sell goods at high prices. When goods are expensive, the citizens' wealth will be exhausted. When their wealth is exhausted, the peasantry will be afflicted with increased taxes.

    [02.14] When all strength has been exhausted and resources depleted, all houses in the central plains utterly impoverished, seven-tenths of the citizens' wealth dissipated, the government's expenses from damaged chariots, worn-out horses, armor, helmets, arrows and crossbows, halberds and shields, draft oxen, and heavy supply wagons, will be six-tenths of its reserves.

    [02.15] Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

    [02.16] Killing the enemy is a matter of arousing anger in men; taking the enemy's wealth is a matter of reward. Therefore, in chariot battles, reward the first to capture at least ten chariots.

    [02.17] Replace the enemy's flags and standards with our own. Mix the captured chariots with our own and treat the captured soldiers well. This is called defeating the enemy and increasing our strength.

    [02.18] Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

    [02.19] Therefore, a general who understands warfare is the guardian of people's lives, and the ruler of the nation's security.
  3. Planning Attacks
    [03.01] Generally in warfare, keeping a nation intact is best, destroying a nation second best; keeping an army intact is best, destroying an army second best; keeping a battalion intact is best, destroying a battalion second best; keeping a company intact is best, destroying a company second best; keeping a squad intact is best, destroying a squad second best.

    [03.02] Therefore, to achieve a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence; to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence.

    [03.03] Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city.

    [03.04] Laying siege to a city is only done when other options are not available.

    [03.05] To build protective shields, armored wagons, and make ready other arms and equipment will require at least three months.

    [03.06] To build earthen mounds against the walls will require another three months.

    [03.07] If the general cannot control his temper and sends troops to swarm the walls, one third of them will be killed, and the city will still not be taken. This is the kind of calamity when laying siege to a walled city.

    [03.08] Therefore, one who is skilled in warfare principles subdues the enemy without doing battle, takes the enemy's walled city without attacking, and overthrows the enemy quickly, without protracted warfare.

    [03.09] His aim must be to take All-Under-Heaven intact.

    [03.10] Therefore, weapons will not be blunted, and gains will be intact. These are the principles of planning attacks.

    [03.11] Generally in warfare: If ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, divide them; if equal, be able to fight them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them.

    [03.12] Therefore, a smaller army that is inflexible will be captured by a larger one.

    [03.13] A general is the safeguard of the nation. When this support is in place, the nation will be strong. When this support is not in place, the nation will not be strong.

    [03.14] There are three ways the ruler can bring difficulty to the army: (1) To order an advance when not realizing the army is in no position to advance, or to order a withdrawal when not realizing the army is in no position to withdraw. This is called entangling the army.

    [03.15] (2) By not knowing the army's matters, and administering the army the same as administering civil matters, the officers and troops will be confused.

    [03.16] (3) By not knowing the army's calculations, and taking command of the army, the officers and troops will be hesitant.

    [03.17] When the army is confused and hesitant, the neighboring rulers will take advantage. This is called a confused and hesitant army leading another to victory.

    [03.18] Therefore, there are five factors of knowing who will win: (1) One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious;

    [03.19] (2) One who knows how to use both large and small forces will be victorious;

    [03.20] (3) One who knows how to unite upper and lower ranks in purpose will be victorious;

    [03.21] (4) One who is prepared and waits for the unprepared will be victorious;

    [03.22] (5) One whose general is able and is not interfered by the ruler will be victorious. These five factors are the way to know who will win.

    [03.23] Therefore I say: One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles.

    [03.24] One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose. One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle.
  4. Formation
    [04.01] In ancient times, those skilled in warfare made themselves invincible and then waited for the enemy to become vulnerable. Being invincible depends on oneself, but the enemy's vulnerability depends on himself.

    [04.02] Those skilled in warfare can make themselves invincible, but cannot necessarily cause the enemy to be vulnerable. Therefore it is said one may know how to win but cannot necessarily do it.

    [04.03] One takes on invincibility defending; one takes on vulnerability attacking.

    [04.04] One takes on sufficiency defending, one takes on deficiency attacking."

    [04.05] Those skilled in defense conceal themselves in the lowest depths of the Earth. Those skilled in attack move in the highest reaches of the Heavens. Therefore, they are able to protect themselves and achieve complete victory.

    [04.06] Perceiving a victory when it is perceived by all is not the highest excellence.

    [04.07] Winning battles such that the whole world cries 'Excellent!' is not the highest excellence.

    [04.08] For lifting an autumn down is not considered great strength, seeing the sun and the moon is not considered a sign of sharp vision, hearing thunder is not considered a sign of sensitive hearing.

    [04.09] In ancient times, those who are skilled in warfare gained victory where victory was easily gained. Therefore, the victories from those skilled in warfare are not considered of great wisdom or courage, because their victories have no complications.

    [04.10] No miscalculations mean the victories are certain, achieving victory over those who have already lost.

    [04.11] Therefore, those skilled in warfare establish positions that make them invincible and do not miss opportunities to attack the enemy.

    [04.12] Therefore, a victorious army first obtains conditions for victory, then seeks to do battle. A defeated army first seeks to do battle, then obtains conditions for victory.

    [04.13] Those skilled in warfare cultivate the Way, and preserve the Law, therefore, they govern victory and defeat.

    [04.14] The factors in warfare are: First, measurement; second, quantity; third, calculation; fourth, comparison; and fifth, victory.

    [04.15] Measurements are derived from Ground, quantities are derived from measurement, calculations are derived from quantities, comparisons are derived from calculations, and victories are derived from comparisons.

    [04.16] A victorious army is like a ton against an ounce; a defeated army is like an ounce against a ton! The victorious army is like pent up waters released, bursting through a deep gorge. This is formation.
  5. Force
    [05.01] Generally, commanding many is like commanding a few. It is a matter of dividing them into groups. Doing battle with a large army is like doing battle with a small army. It is a matter of communications through flags and pennants.

    [05.02] Due to common and uncommon maneuvers, an army can withstand the enemy's attack and not be defeated.

    [05.03] The army will be like throwing a stone against an egg; it is a matter of weakness and strength.

    [05.04] Generally, in battle, use the common to engage the enemy and the uncommon to gain victory. Those skilled at uncommon maneuvers are as endless as the heavens and earth, and as inexhaustible as the rivers and seas.

    [05.05] Like the sun and the moon, they set and rise again. Like the four seasons, they end and begin again. There are no more than five musical notes, yet the variations in the five notes cannot all be heard. There are no more than five basic colors, yet the variations in the five colors cannot all be seen. There are no more than five basic flavors, yet the variations in the five flavors cannot all be tasted.

    [05.06] In battle, there are no more than two types of attacks: Common and uncommon, yet the variations of the common and uncommon cannot all be anticipated.

    [05.07] The common and the uncommon produce each other, like an endless circle. Who can comprehend them?

    [05.08] The rush of torrential waters tossing boulders illustrates force. The strike of a bird of prey breaking the body of its target illustrates timing.

    [05.09] Therefore, the force of those skilled in warfare is overwhelming and their timing precise.

    [05.10] Their force is like a drawn crossbow and their timing is like the release of the trigger.

    [05.11] Even in the midst of the turbulence of battle, the fighting seemingly chaotic, they are not confused. Even in the midst of the turmoil of battle, the troops seemingly going around in circles, they cannot be defeated.

    [05.12] Disorder came from order, fear came from courage, weakness came from strength.

    [05.13] Disorder coming from order is a matter of organization; fear coming from courage is a matter of force, weakness coming from strength is a matter of formation.

    [05.14] Therefore, those skilled in moving the enemy use formation that makes the enemy respond.

    [05.15] They offer bait that which the enemy must take, manipulating the enemy to move while they wait in ambush.

    [05.16] Those skilled in warfare seek victory through force and do not require too much from individuals. Therefore, they are able to select the right men and exploit force.

    [05.17] One who exploits force commands men into battle like rolling logs and boulders. Logs and boulders are still when on flat ground, but roll when on steep ground. Square shapes are still, but round shapes roll.

    [05.18] Therefore, those skilled in warfare use force by making the troops in battle like boulders rolling down a steep mountain. This is force.
  6. Weakness & Strength
    [06.01] Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease; the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued.

    [06.02] Therefore those skilled warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy.

    [06.03] Getting the enemy to approach on his own accord is a matter of showing him advantage; stopping him from approaching is a matter of showing him harm.

    [06.04] Therefore, if the enemy is at ease, be able to exhaust him; if the enemy is well fed, be able to starve him; if the enemy is settled, be able to move him; appear at places where he must rush to defend, and rush to places where he least expects.

    [06.05] To march over a thousand kilometers without becoming distressed, march over where the enemy is not present.

    [06.06] To be certain to take what you attack, attack where the enemy cannot defend.

    [06.07] To be certain of safety when defending, defend where the enemy cannot attack.

    [06.08] Therefore, against those skilled in attack, the enemy does not know where to defend.

    [06.09] Against those skilled in defense, the enemy does not know where to attack.

    [06.10] Subtle, subtle; they become formless. Mysterious, mysterious; they become soundless. Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate.

    [06.11] To achieve an advance that cannot be hampered, rush to his weak points. To achieve a withdrawal that cannot be pursued, depart with superior speed.

    [06.12] Therefore, if we want to do battle, even if the enemy is protected by high walls and deep moats, he cannot but do battle, because we attack what he must rescue. If we do not want to do battle, even if we merely draw a line on the ground, he will not do battle, because we divert his movements.

    [06.13] Therefore, if we can make the enemy show his position while we are formless, the enemy is divided while we are at full force.

    [06.14] If our army is at full force and the enemy is divided, then we will attack him at ten times his strength.

    [06.15] Therefore, we are many and the enemy few. If we attack our many against his few, the enemy will be in dire straits.

    [06.16] The place of battle must not be made known to the enemy. If it is not known, then the enemy must prepare to defend many places.

    [06.17] If the enemy prepares to defend many places, then his forces will be few in number.

    [06.18] Therefore, if the enemy prepares to defend the front, the back will be weak. If he prepares to defend the back, the front will be weak. If he prepares to defend the left, the right will be weak. If he prepares to defend the right, the left will be weak. If he prepares to defend everywhere, everywhere will be weak.

    [06.19] The few are those preparing to defend against others, the many are those who make others prepare to defend against them.

    [06.20] Therefore, if one knows the place of battle and the day of battle, he can march a thousand kilometers and do battle.

    [06.21] If one does not know the place of battle and the day of battle, then his left cannot aid his right, his right cannot aid his left, his front cannot aid his back, and his back cannot aid his front.

    [06.22] How much less so if he is separated by tens of kilometers, or even a few kilometers.

    [06.23] Though Yueh's troops were many, what advantage was this to them? You can achieve victory.

    [06.24] Though the enemy is many, he can be prevented from doing battle. Therefore, know the enemy's plans and calculate his strengths and weaknesses.

    [06.25] Provoke him, to know his patterns of movement.

    [06.26] Determine his position, to know the ground of death and of life.

    [06.27] Probe him, to know where he is strong and where he is weak.

    [06.28] The ultimate skill is to take up a position where you are formless.

    [06.29] If you are formless, the most penetrating spies will not be able to discern you, or the wisest counsels will not be able to do calculations against you.

    [06.30] With formation, the army achieves victories yet they do not understand how. Everyone knows the formation by which you achieved victory, yet no one knows the formations by which you were able to create victory.

    [06.31] Therefore, your strategy for victories in battle is not repetitious, and your formations in response to the enemy are endless.

    [06.32] The army's formation is like water. The water's formation avoids the high and rushes to the low.

    [06.33] So an army's formation avoids the strong and rushes to the weak.

    [06.34] Water's formation adapts to the ground when flowing. So then an army's formation adapts to the enemy to achieve victory.

    [06.35] Therefore, an army does not have constant force or have constant formation. Those who are able to adapt and change in accord with the enemy and achieve victory are called divine.

    [06.36] Therefore, of the five elements, none a constant victor; of the four seasons, none has constant position; the sun has short and long spans, and the moon waxes and wanes.
  7. Armed Struggle
    [07.01] Generally, the principles of warfare are: The general receives his commands from the ruler, assembles the troops, mobilizes the army, and sets up camp.

    [07.02] There is nothing more difficult than armed struggle.

    [07.03] In armed struggle, the difficulty is turning the circuitous into the direct, and turning adversity into advantage.

    [07.04] Therefore, if you make the enemy's route circuitous and bait him with advantages, though you start out behind him, you will arrive before him. This is to know the calculations of the circuitous and of the direct.

    [07.05] Therefore, armed struggle has advantages, and armed struggle has risks. If the entire army mobilizes for an advantage, you will not arrive on time.

    [07.06] If a reduced army mobilizes for an advantage, your stores and equipment will be lost.

    [07.07] For this reason, by rolling up your armor, rushing forward without stopping day or night, covering twice the usual distance for an advantage a hundred kilometers away, the general will be captured. The strong will arrive first, the weak will lag behind, and as a rule, only one-tenth will arrive.

    [07.08] If one struggles for an advantage fifty kilometers away, the general of the front forces will be thwarted, and as a rule only one half will arrive. If one struggles for an advantage thirty kilometers away, then two-thirds of the army will arrive.

    [07.09] For this reason, if an army is without its equipment will lose; if an army is without its provisions will lose; if the army is without its stores will lose.

    [07.10] Therefore, one who does not know the intentions of the rulers of the neighboring states cannot secure alliances.

    [07.11] One who does not know the mountains and forests, gorges and defiles, swamps and wetlands cannot advance the army. One who does not use local guides cannot take advantage of the ground.

    [07.12] Therefore, the army is established on deception, mobilized by advantage, and changed through dividing up and consolidating the troops.

    [07.13] Therefore, it advances like the wind; it marches like the forest; it invades and plunders like fire; it stands like the mountain; it is formless like the dark; it strikes like thunder.

    [07.14] When you plunder the countryside, divide the wealth among your troops; when you expand your territory, divide up and hold places of advantage.

    [07.15] Calculate the situation, and then move. Those who know the principles of the circuitous and direct will be victorious. This is armed struggle.

    [07.16] The Book of Military Administration says: It is because words cannot be clearly heard in battle, drums and gongs are used; it is because troops cannot see each other clearly in battle, flags and pennants are used.

    [07.17] Therefore, in night battles use torches and drums; in day battles use flags and pennants. Drums, gongs, flags, and pennants are used to unite men's eyes and ears.

    [07.18] When the men are united, the brave cannot advance alone, the cowardly cannot retreat alone. These are the principles for employing a large number of troops.

    [07.19] Therefore, in night battles, use many torches and drums, and in day battles, use many flags and pennants in order to influence men's eyes and ears.

    [07.20] The energy of the army can be dampened, and the general's mind can be dampened. Therefore, in the morning, energy is high, but during the day energy begins to flag; and in the evening, energy is exhausted.

    [07.21] Therefore, those skilled in the use of force avoid [the enemy's] high energy, and strike when energy is exhausted. This is the way to manage energy.

    [07.22] Disciplined, wait for disorder; calm, wait for clamor. This is the way to manage the mind.

    [07.23] Near, wait for the distant; rested, wait for the fatigued; full, wait for the hungry. This is the way to manage strength.

    [07.24] Do not do battle with well ordered flags; do not do battle with well-regulated formations. This is the way to manage adaptation.

    [07.25] Therefore, the principles of warfare are: Do not attack an enemy that has the high ground; do not attack an enemy that has his back to a hill; do not pursue feigned retreats; do not attack elite troops; do not swallow the enemy's bait.

    [07.26] Do not thwart an enemy retreating home. If you surround the enemy, leave an outlet; do not press an enemy that is cornered. These are the principles of warfare.
  8. Nine Changes
    [08.01] Generally, the principles of warfare are: The general receives his commands from the ruler, assembles the armies, and mobilizes the masses.

    [08.02] Do not camp on difficult ground. Unite with your allies on intersecting ground. Do not stay on open ground. Be prepared on surrounded ground. Do battle on deadly ground.

    [08.03] There are routes not to be taken; there are armies not to be attacked; there are walled cities not to be besieged; there are grounds not to be penetrated; there are commands not to be obeyed.

    [08.04] Therefore, the general who knows the advantages of the nine changes knows how to use the troops.

    [08.05] If the general does not know the advantages of the nine changes, even if he knows the lay of the land, he will not be able to take advantage of the ground.

    [08.06] He who commands an army but does not know the principles of the nine changes, even if he is familiar with the five advantages, will not be able to best use his troops.

    [08.07] Therefore, the intelligent general contemplates both the advantages and disadvantages.

    [08.08] Contemplating the advantages, he fulfills his calculations; contemplating the disadvantages, he removes his difficulties.

    [08.09] Therefore, subjugate the neighboring rulers with potential disadvantages, labor the neighboring rulers with constant matters, and have the neighboring rulers rush after advantages.

    [08.10] So the principles of warfare are: Do not depend on the enemy not coming, but depend on our readiness against him. Do not depend on the enemy not attacking, but depend on our position that cannot be attacked.

    [08.11] Therefore, there are five dangerous traits of a general: He who is reckless can be killed.

    [08.12] He who is cowardly can be captured.

    [08.13] He who is quick tempered can be insulted.

    [08.14] He who is moral can be shamed.

    [08.15] He who is fond of the people can be worried.

    [08.16] These five traits are faults in a general, and are disastrous in warfare. The army's destruction, and the death of the general are due to these five dangerous traits. They must be examined.
  9. Army Maneuvers
    [09.01] Generally, on positioning the army and observing the enemy:
    To cross mountains, stay close to the valleys; observe on high ground and face the sunny side. If the enemy holds the high ground, do not ascend and do battle with him. This is positioning the army in the mountains.

    [09.02] After crossing a river, you must stay far away from it. If the enemy crosses a river, do not meet him in the water. When half of his forces has crossed, it will then be advantageous to strike.

    [09.03] If you want to do battle with the enemy, do not position your forces near the water facing the enemy; take high ground facing the sunny side, and do not position downstream. This is positioning the army near rivers.

    [09.04] After crossing swamps and wetlands, strive to quickly get through them, and do not linger. If you do battle in swamps and wetlands, you must position close to grass, with the trees to your back. This is positioning the army in swamps and wetlands.

    [09.05] On level ground, position on places that are easy to maneuver with your right backed by high ground, with the dangerous ground in front, and safe ground to the back. This is positioning the army on level ground.

    [09.06] These are the four positions advantageous to the army, which enabled the Yellow Emperor to conquer four rulers.

    [09.07] Generally, the army prefers high ground and dislikes low ground, values the sunny side and despises the shady side, nourishes its health and occupies places with resources, and avoids numerous sicknesses. These factors mean certain victory.

    [09.08] Where there are hills and embankments, you must position on the sunny side, with the hills and embankments to your right back.

    [09.09] These are advantages to the army.

    [09.10] Use the ground for assistance.

    [09.11] When the rainwater rises and descends down to where you want to cross, wait until it settles.

    [09.12] Where there is ground with impassable ravines, Heaven's Wells, Heaven's Prisons, Heaven's Nets, Heaven's Pits, and Heaven's Fissures, you must march quickly away from them. Do not approach them.

    [09.13] When we distance from them, draw the enemy to approach them. When we move to face the enemy, he will have them at his back.

    [09.14] When the army is flanked by high ground, wetlands, tall reeds and grass, mountain forests, or areas with thick undergrowth, you must search carefully and thoroughly, because these are places where men lie in ambush or where spies hide.

    [09.15] If the enemy is close and remains quiet, he occupies a natural stronghold.

    [09.16] If the enemy is far away and challenges you to do battle, he wants you to advance, because he occupies level ground that is to his advantage.

    [09.17] If trees move, he is advancing; if there are obstacles placed in the undergrowth, he wants to make us suspicious.

    [09.18] If the birds take flight, he is lying in ambush; if the animals are in fear, he is preparing to attack.

    [09.19] If dust is high in straight columns, his chariots are advancing; if dust is low and wide, his infantry is advancing. If the dust is scattered, he is gathering wood; if the dust is sparse, coming and going, he is encamping.

    [09.20] If he speaks humbly, but increases warfare readiness, he will advance.

    [09.21] If he speaks belligerently and advances aggressively, he will retreat.

    [09.22] If he speaks apologetically, he needs a rest.

    [09.23] If his light chariots move first and take position on the flanks, he is setting up for battle. If he seeks peace without a treaty, he is calculating.

    [09.24] If he sets up his troops rapidly, he is expecting reinforcements.

    [09.25] If half of his troops advances and half of his troops retreats, he is trying to lure you.

    [09.26] If the troops lean on their weapons, they are hungry. If the troops who draw water drink first, they are thirsty.

    [09.27] If he sees advantage but does not take it, he is tired.

    [09.28] If birds gather, he is not there.

    [09.29] If his troops cry at night, they are afraid.

    [09.30] If the army is unsettled, the general is weak.

    [09.31] If the enemy's flags and pennants move about, he is in chaos.

    [09.32] If the officers are irritable, they are exhausted.

    [09.33] If his horses are fed grain and his men meat, no longer hangs up cooking pots, and does not return to camp, he is desperate.

    [09.34] If troops constantly gather in small groups and whisper together, he has lost his men.

    [09.35] If he gives out rewards frequently, he is running out of resources.

    [09.36] If he gives out punishments frequently, he is dire straits.

    [09.37] If he is brutal at first, and then fears the masses, he is the extreme of ineptitude.

    [09.38] If he comes with offerings, he wants to rest.

    [09.39] If his troops confront you with anger, but do not do battle or leave their position, he must be investigated.

    [09.40] In warfare, numbers may not necessarily be an advantage; do not advance aggressively.

    [09.41] It is enough to consolidate your strength, calculate the enemy, and get support from your men.

    [09.42] One who lacks strategic planning and underestimates the enemy will be captured.

    [09.43] If one punishes the troops before their loyalty is formed, they will be disobedient. If they are disobedient, they will be difficult to use. If one does not punish the troops after their loyalty is formed, they cannot be used.

    [09.44] Therefore, if he commands them by benevolence, and unifies them by discipline, this is called certain victory.

    [09.45] If commands are consistently enforced when training men, they will be obedient; if commands are not consistently enforced when training men, they will be disobedient.

    [09.46] If commands are consistently executed, they are in accord with the general.
  10. Ground Formation
    [10.01] The grounds are accessible, entrapping, stalemated, narrow, steep, and expansive. If you can go through but the enemy cannot, it is called accessible.

    [10.02] For accessible ground, first take the high and the sunny side, and convenient supply routes. You then do battle with the advantage.

    [10.03] If you can go through but difficult to go back, it is called entrapping. For entrapping ground, if the enemy is unprepared, advance and defeat him.

    [10.04] If the enemy is prepared, and you advance and are not victorious, it will be difficult to go back; this is disadvantageous.

    [10.05] If it is not advantageous to advance or for the enemy to advance, it is called stalemated. For stalemated ground, though the enemy offers you advantage, do not advance. Withdraw.

    [10.06] If you strike them when half has advanced, this is advantageous.

    [10.07] For narrow ground, we must occupy it first; be prepared and wait for the enemy. If the enemy occupies it first, and is prepared, do not follow him. If he is not prepared, follow him.

    [10.08] For steep ground, if you occupy it first, occupy the high on the sunny side and wait for the enemy. If the enemy occupies it first, withdraw; do not follow him.

    [10.09] For expansive ground, if the forces are equal, it will be difficult to do battle. Doing battle will not be advantageous. These are the six Ways of ground. They are the general's responsibility, and must be examined.

    [10.10] In warfare, there are flight, insubordination, deterioration, collapse, chaos, and setback. These six situations are not caused by Heaven or Ground, but by the general.

    [10.11] If the forces are equal, and one attacks ten, this is called flight. If the troops are strong but the officers weak, this is called insubordination. If the officers are strong but the troops weak, this is called deterioration.

    [10.12] If the officers are angry and insubordinate, doing battle with the enemy under anger and insubordination, and the general does not know their abilities, this is called collapse.

    [10.13] If the general is weak and not disciplined, his instructions not clear, the officers and troops lack discipline and their formation in disarray, this is called chaos.

    [10.14] If the general cannot calculate his enemy, and uses a small number against a large number, his weak attacking the strong, and has no selected vanguard, this is called setback. These are the six Ways of defeat. They are the general's responsibility, and must be examined.

    [10.15] Formations of the ground assist the army. To calculate the enemy, create conditions leading to victory, calculating the dangers and distances. They are the Ways of the superior general.

    [10.16] Those who do battle and know these are certain for victory. Those who do battle and do not know these are certain for defeat.

    [10.17] Therefore, if the Way of warfare indicates certain victory, though the ruler does not want to do battle, the general may do battle. If the Way of warfare indicates defeat, though the ruler wants to do battle, the general may not do battle.

    [10.18] Therefore, the general who does not advance to seek glory, or does not withdraw to avoid punishment, but cares for only the people's security and promotes the people's interests, is the nation's treasure.

    [10.19] He looks upon his troops as children, and they will advance to the deepest valleys. He looks upon his troops as his own children, and they will die with him.

    [10.20] If the general is kind to the troops, but cannot use them, or if the general loves the troops, but cannot command them, or if the general does not discipline the troops, but cannot establish order, the troops are like spoiled children and are useless.

    [10.21] If I know the troops can attack, but do not know the enemy cannot attack, my victory is half.

    [10.22] If I know the enemy can be attacked, but do not know the troops cannot attack, my victory is half.

    [10.23] If I know the enemy can be attacked, and know the troops can attack, but do not know the ground in battle, my victory is half.

    [10.24] Therefore, one who knows how to advance the army is limitless when taking action.

    [10.25] Therefore I say, if you know the enemy and know yourself, the victory is not at risk. If you know the Heaven and you know the Ground, the victory is complete.
  11. Nine Grounds
    [11.01] The principles of warfare are: There are dispersive ground, marginal ground, contentious ground, open ground, intersecting ground, critical ground, difficult ground, surrounded ground, and deadly ground.

    [11.02] Where the rulers do battle in their own ground, this is called dispersive ground. Where one enters the other's ground but not deep, this is called marginal ground. Where it is advantageous if you occupy it and it is advantageous if the enemy occupies it, this is called contentious ground. Where one can come and go, this is called open ground.

    [11.03] Where ground is surrounded by others, and the first one to reach it will gain the support of the masses, this is called intersecting ground. Where one enters deep into enemy ground, with many walled cities and towns to his back, this is called critical ground. Where there are mountains and forests, defiles and ravines, swamps and wetlands, and places difficult to pass, this is called difficult ground.

    [11.04] Where the entrance is narrow, the exit circuitous, allowing the enemy to attack his few to our many, this is called surrounded ground. Where if one who does battle with full force survives, and one who does not do battle with full force perishes, this is called deadly ground.

    [11.05] Therefore, on dispersive ground, do not do battle.

    [11.06] On marginal ground, do not stop.

    [11.07] On contentious ground, do not attack.

    [11.08] On open ground, do not become separated.

    [11.09] On intersecting ground, form alliances.

    [11.10] On critical ground, plunder.

    [11.11] On difficult ground, press on.

    [11.12] On surrounded ground, be prepared.

    [11.13] On deadly ground, do battle.

    [11.14] In ancient times, those skilled in warfare were able to prevent the unity of the enemy's front and back, the many and the few, the noble and the peasants, and the superiors and the subordinates.

    [11.15] Have the enemy be separated and unable to assemble; if the enemy is assembled, it should not be organized.

    [11.16] Move when advantageous, stop when not advantageous.

    [11.17] Ask: If the enemy is large in number and advances, what should be the response? I say: Seize what he values, and he will do what you wish.

    [11.18] The essential factor in warfare is speed.

    [11.19] To take advantage of the enemy's lack of preparation, take unexpected routes to attack where the enemy is not prepared.

    [11.20] Generally, the Way of invading is when one has penetrated deep into enemy ground, the troops are united; the defender will not be able to prevail.

    [11.21] If you plunder the fertile fields, the army will have enough provisions.

    [11.22] If you take care of your health, avoid fatigue, you will be united, and will build strength.

    [11.23] When moving troops and calculating plans, be formless.

    [11.24] Throw your troops into situations where there is no escape, where they will die before escaping. When they are about to die, what can they not do? They will exert their full strength.

    [11.25] When the troops are in desperate situations, they fear nothing; having penetrated deep in enemy ground, they are united.

    [11.26] When there are no other alternatives, they will fight.

    [11.27] Therefore, though not disciplined, they are alert; though not asked, they are devoted; though without promises, they are faithful; and though not commanded, they are trustworthy.

    [11.28] Prohibit omens, and get rid of doubts, and they will die without any other thoughts.

    [11.29] The soldiers do not have wealth, but not because they dislike material goods; they do not live long, but not because they dislike longevity.

    [11.30] On the day the men are issued orders to do battle, the sitting soldiers' tears will soak their sleeves, and the lying soldiers' tears will roll down their cheeks.

    [11.31] However, if you throw them into a desperate situation, they will have the courage of Chuan Chu or Ts'ao Kuei.

    [11.32] Therefore, those skilled in warfare are like the shuaijan. The shuaijan is a serpent on Mount Chang. If you strike its head, its tail attacks; if you strike its tail, its head attacks; if you strike its middle, both the head and tail attack.

    [11.33] Ask: Can forces be made like the shuaijan? I say: They can. The men of Wu and Yueh hated each other, however, encountering severe winds when crossing a river on the same boat, they assisted each other like left and right hands.

    [11.34] Therefore, hobbling horses and burying chariot wheels are not enough.

    [11.35] The Way of organization is uniting their courage, making the best of the strong and the weak through the principles of Ground.

    [11.36] Therefore, one who is skilled in warfare leads them by the hand like they are one person; they cannot but follow.

    [11.37] It is important for a general to be calm and remote, upright and disciplined, and be able to mystify his men's eyes and ears, keeping them ignorant.

    [11.38] He changes his methods and plans, keeping them from knowing. He changes his campsites and takes circuitous routes, keeping them from anticipating.

    [11.39] The day the general leads his troops into battle, it is like climbing up high and throwing away the ladder.

    [11.40] He leads his troops deep into enemy ground, and releases the trigger. He burns his boats and destroys the cooking pots.

    [11.41] He commands his troops like herding sheep; being herded to and fro without them knowing where they are going.

    [11.42] Assembling the masses of the army, and throwing them into danger are the responsibility of the general.

    [11.43] Adaptations to the nine grounds, the advantages in defensive and offensive maneuvers, and the patterns of human emotions must be examined.

    [11.44] Generally, the Way of invading is: When troops are deep in enemy ground, they are united; when troops are not deep in enemy ground, they are scattered.

    [11.45] Where you leave your country, and lead the troops across the border into enemy ground, this is called isolated ground. Where there are four sides open, this is called intersecting ground. Where you penetrated deep in enemy ground, this is called critical ground. Where you penetrated little in enemy ground, this is called marginal ground. Where the back is impassable and the front is narrow, this is called surrounded ground. Where there is nowhere to go, this is called deadly ground.

    [11.46] Therefore, on isolated ground, I have my troops united.
    (Review of dispersive ground: 11.05 "Therefore, on dispersive ground, do not do battle.")

    [11.47] On marginal ground, I consolidate my troops.
    (Review of marginal ground: 11.06 "On marginal ground, do not stop.")

    [11.48] On contentious ground, I hurry my back.
    (Review of contentious ground: 11.07 "On contentious ground, do not attack.")

    [11.49] On open ground, I pay attention to our defenses.
    (Review of open ground: 11.08 "On open ground, do not become separated.")

    [11.50] On intersecting ground, I strengthen our alliances.
    (Review of intersecting ground: 11.09 "On intersecting ground, form alliances.")

    [11.51] On critical ground, I maintain continuous supply of provisions.
    (Review of critical ground: 11.10 "On critical ground, plunder.")

    [11.52] On difficult ground, I press on quickly.
    (Review of difficult ground: 11.11 "On difficult ground, press on.")

    [11.53] On surrounded ground, I block off openings.
    (Review of surrounded ground: 11.12 "On surrounded ground, be prepared.")

    [11.54] On deadly ground, I show the troops our resolve to fight to the death.
    (Review of deadly ground: 11.13 "On deadly ground, do battle.")

    [11.55] Therefore, the nature of the army is: To defend when surrounded, to fight hard when there are no other alternatives, and to obey commands promptly when in danger.

    [11.56] Therefore, one who does not know the intentions of the rulers of the neighboring states cannot secure alliances.

    [11.57] One who does not know the mountains and forests, gorges and defiles, swamps and wetlands cannot advance the army. One who does not use local guides cannot take advantage of the ground. One who does not know any one of these matters cannot command the army of a ruler.

    [11.58] When the army of a ruler attacks a great nation, the nation's masses cannot assemble.

    [11.59] When its power overwhelms the nation, alliances cannot be formed.

    [11.60] Therefore, one does not contend for alliances with other nations. One does not foster the power of other nations. If one pursues his aims, overwhelming the enemy, then, he can take the enemy's cities and overthrow kingdoms.

    [11.61] Give out rewards transcending law, give out commands transcending policy.

    [11.62] Command the masses like commanding one person.

    [11.63] Give your troops tasks, but do not reveal them your plans.

    [11.64] Get them to face danger, but do not reveal the advantages. Throw them into danger and they will survive; put them on deadly ground and they will live. Only if the troops are in situations of danger will they turn defeat into victory.

    [11.65] The concern of warfare is that operations are in accord with the enemy's intentions.

    [11.66] If one then concentrates his strength on the enemy, killing his general a thousand kilometers away, this is called achieving objectives through wit and skill.

    [11.67] Therefore, on the day war is declared, close off all borders, destroy all passports, and do not allow their envoys to pass.

    [11.68] Go through your plans in the temple and bring about the execution of those plans.

    [11.69] If the enemy presents an opportunity, take advantage of it.

    [11.70] Attack what he values most.

    [11.71] Do not advance on any fixed day or time; calculate and adapt to the enemy to determine the matter of doing battle.

    [11.72] Therefore, be like a maiden; once the enemy opens the door, be like a scurrying hare. The enemy will be unable to prevail.
  12. Fire Attacks
    [12.01] There are five kinds of fire attacks: One, burning personnel; two, burning provisions; three, burning equipment; four, burning stores; five, burning weapons.

    [12.02] Using fire attacks depends on proper conditions. Equipment for fire attacks must be available beforehand.

    [12.03] There are appropriate seasons for using fire attacks, and appropriate days for raising fires. The appropriate season is when the weather is dry; the appropriate day is when the moon is at Chi, Pi, I, or Chen. These four days are when there are rising winds.

    [12.04] Generally, in fire attacks, you must respond according to the five changes of fire: If the fires are set inside enemy camp, you must respond quickly outside the enemy camp; if the fires are set but the enemy is calm, then wait, do not attack. Let the fire reach its height, and follow up if you can, stay if you cannot.

    [12.05] If the fire attack can be set outside, without relying on the inside, set it when the time is right. If the fire is set upwind, do not attack downwind. If it is windy all during the day, the wind will stop at night. The army must know the five changes of fire, to be able to calculate the appropriate days.

    [12.06] Those who use fire to assist in attacks are intelligent, those who use water to assist in attacks are powerful. Water can be used to cut off the enemy, but cannot be used to plunder.

    [12.07] If one gains victory in battle and is successful in attacks, but does not exploit those achievements, it is disastrous. This is called waste and delay.

    [12.08] Therefore, I say the wise general thinks about it, and the good general executes it.

    [12.09] If it is not advantageous, do not move; if there is no gain, do not use troops; if there is no danger, do not do battle.

    [12.10] The ruler may not move his army out of anger; the general may not do battle out of wrath.

    [12.11] If it is advantageous, move; if it is not advantageous, stop.

    [12.12] Those angry will be happy again, and those wrathful will be cheerful again, but a destroyed nation cannot exist again, the dead cannot be brought back to life.

    [12.13] Therefore, the enlightened ruler is prudent, the good general is cautious. This is the Way of securing the nation, and preserving the army.
  13. Using Spies
    [13.01] Generally, raising an army of a hundred thousand and advancing it a thousand kilometers, the expenses to the people and the nation's resources are one thousand gold pieces a day.

    [13.02] Those in commotion internally and externally, those exhausted on the roads, and those unable to do their daily work are seven hundred thousand families.

    [13.03] Two sides remain in standoff for several years in order to do battle for a decisive victory on a single day.

    [13.04] Yet one refusing to outlay a hundred pieces of gold and thereby does not know the enemy's situation is the height of inhumanity. This one is not the general of the people, a help to the ruler, or the master of victory.

    [13.05] What enables the enlightened rulers and good generals to conquer the enemy at every move and achieve extraordinary success is foreknowledge.

    [13.06] Foreknowledge cannot be elicited from ghosts and spirits; it cannot be inferred from comparison of previous events, or from the calculations of the heavens, but must be obtained from people who have knowledge of the enemy's situation.

    [13.07] Therefore there are five kinds of spies used: Local spies, internal spies, double spies, dead spies, and living spies.

    [13.08] When all five are used, and no one knows their Way, it is called the divine organization, and is the ruler's treasure.

    [13.09] For local spies, we use the enemy's people. For internal spies we use the enemy's officials. For double spies we use the enemy's spies. For dead spies we use agents to spread misinformation to the enemy. For living spies, we use agents to return with reports.

    [13.10] Therefore, of those close to the army, none is closer than spies, no reward more generously given, and no matter in greater secrecy.

    [13.11] Only the wisest ruler can use spies; only the most benevolent and upright general can use spies, and only the most alert and observant person can get the truth using spies. It is subtle, subtle!

    [13.12] There is nowhere that spies cannot be used.

    [13.13] If a spy's activities are leaked before they are to begin, the spy and those who know should be put to death.

    [13.14] Generally, if you want to attack an army, besiege a walled city, assassinate individuals, you must know the identities of the defending generals, assistants, associates, gate guards, and officers.

    [13.15] You must have spies seek and learn them. You must seek enemy spies. Bribe them, and instruct and retain them. Therefore, double spies can be obtained and used.

    [13.16] From their knowledge, you can obtain local and internal spies. From their knowledge, the dead spies can spread misinformation to the enemy. From their knowledge, our living spies can be used as planned. The ruler must know these five kinds of espionage.

    [13.17] This knowledge depends on the double spies. Therefore, you must treat them with the utmost generosity.

    [13.18] In ancient times, the rise of the Yin dynasty was due to I Chih, who served the house of Hsia; the rise of the Chou dynasty was due to Lu Ya, who served the house of Yin.

    [13.19] Therefore, enlightened rulers and good generals who are able to obtain intelligent agents as spies are certain for great achievements.

    [13.20] This is essential for warfare, and what the army depends on to move.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Thaluikhain
King
Posts: 6153
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:30 pm

Post by Thaluikhain »

Judging__Eagle wrote:[02.08] Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted. No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.
Getting a bit off-topic, but I'd dispute this bit. The Fabian strategy of protraction allowed Rome to resist Hannibal, and had Washington not adopted it millennia later, the Americans might speak English (so to speak). To say no nation benefits fails to take into account that you only have to benefit more than your opponent's nation.

Of course, Sun Tzu wouldn't have known of those examples.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

You're actually agreeing with Sonshi, not disagreeing. The Art of War is one of the earliest books describing the effectiveness of guerilla war in the face of a larger enemy force. Then there's the fact that Sonshi also literally spells out that besieging cities is the worst strategic choice, and that fighting "every" army is an incorrect idea to have (e.g. "some armies should not be fought").

In the lines preceding and following line [02.08], Sonshi is referring to the conduct of protracted invasions into foreign territory, and the economic costs distant campaigns incur. A literal warning against the dangers of being enmeshed by an opponents Fabian doctrine. In both cases, the Carthaginians and the British were ground into defeat becuase they were conducting protracted wars on foreign soil.

Mao Zhedong also used Fabian strategies when applying Sonshi to their revolutionary war for China.

The US' 10+ year invasion/occupation of Afganistan & Iraq after 2000, are a more contemporary example. Those wars resulted in massive detriment the the US' economic value.


Sonshi may not know of examples after the 5th century BC; but China had had some of the largest wars conducted on Earth until that point within/around it's geographic region. That copies of The Art of War are required reading for US Marine officer training, considered acceptable library material in US military libraries, as well as widely recognized and used in China, Japan, Vietnam, and other Asian countries means that Sonshi's abstract observations on conflict are still considered valuable learning material by notable contemporary militaries.

While say, Clauswitz's much more 'modern' "On War" (which was both post-Fabian, post-Washington, and post-Napolean) is largely relegated to being studied academic military historians, not at military academies.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

One might say that rather than re-designing D&D to support Armies and Heroes having different things they can defeat, ...

Maybe armies beat everything. They have siege weapons and a magic renting budget and eventually the siege of the giant fucking dragon nest works and it dies. But armies also cost, well, population, production, all that foraging and billeting, koku, whatever. So if you want to army the dragon to death, because the dragon nest existing in your realm costs you -1k koku per season, and it turns out that would cost 100k koku of army time and also 20 barrels of cock, well, no.

So instead you get adventurers to do it, because they don't cost any koku at all, only 50 barrels of cock, and you have more than enough cock to spare.

Adventurers can then be like, well, differently resourced to armies, with various tasks armies can do for much less koku because they're not foraging or dying in dragon-vomit, and even net positive barrels of cock for assisting in the tax collection, where PCs are bad at those things, and then you have a sort of a game that makes sense.

The necromancer raids your lands with an skeleton army because it costs the owner of the terrain koku, but only costs the necromancer a few barrels of cock. Adventurers can even have a "no you can't" when it comes to defeating armies, and they have to target the leadership and break the resource chain that keeps them in the field, so we can play D&D.

Then the armies can be dangerous terrain for the bit of the game were PCs fight their leaders.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Thaluikhain
King
Posts: 6153
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:30 pm

Post by Thaluikhain »

Judging__Eagle wrote:In the lines preceding and following line [02.08], Sonshi is referring to the conduct of protracted invasions into foreign territory, and the economic costs distant campaigns incur.
Not how I read that, but then I'm only reading a translation, so fair enough.
Judging__Eagle wrote:That copies of The Art of War are required reading for US Marine officer training, considered acceptable library material in US military libraries, as well as widely recognized and used in China, Japan, Vietnam, and other Asian countries means that Sonshi's abstract observations on conflict are still considered valuable learning material by notable contemporary militaries.
Oh, certainly, I'd not discount the entirety of his work because of one sentence I disagree with. The parts on deception, in particular, could be written much the same today.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Thaluikhain wrote: Not how I read that, but then I'm only reading a translation, so fair enough.
Specifically b/c Chapter 2 begins with the statement:

[02.01] Generally, the requirements of warfare are this way: One thousand four-horse chariots, one thousand leather chariots, one hundred thousand belted armor, transporting provisions one thousand kilometers, the distribution of internal and on-the-field spending, the efforts of having guests, materials such as glue and lacquer, tributes in chariots and armor, will amount to expenses of a thousand gold pieces a day.

Emphasis mine, implies that the chapter is mostly talking about foreign campaigns.
Oh, certainly, I'd not discount the entirety of his work because of one sentence I disagree with. The parts on deception, in particular, could be written much the same today.
Some other highly applicable factors from Sonshi: warfare is the last of seven political options; force should always be directed where the enemy is not able to project force (as Frank said in an other thread some time ago, most conflict is about "bellies & points", and obfuscating real ones while creating ruses of false ones).
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

In both cases, the Carthaginians and the British were ground into defeat because they were conducting protracted wars on foreign soil.
But the British protracted military campaigns in Scotland were very successful and ultimately very valuable in terms of power and wealth. Spain's protracted military campaigns in South America were so lucrative that the value of gold and gems had to be radically re-evaluated in the Spanish Empire. It's difficult to make the case that the United States' generations-long occupation of the lands of the tribes of the Great Plains wasn't a net economic-positive.

Long occupations or protracted military campaigns are very capable of being profitable if you're willing to just absolutely loot the place you're invading or you have a realistic long term investment and development plan.

Ultimately, an RPG is going to want to support both options. Sometimes you want to sack the Serpent Temples with real sacks and pry the ruby eyes out of the statues. Sometimes you want to build a keep and develop a town around it in the Bane Mires you've been fighting in.

-Username17
Stubbazubba
Knight-Baron
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 6:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Stubbazubba »

Judging__Eagle wrote:While say, Clauswitz's much more 'modern' "On War" (which was both post-Fabian, post-Washington, and post-Napolean) is largely relegated to being studied academic military historians, not at military academies.
No, the basic curriculum at West Point still teaches Clausewitzian Critical Analysis in its very first military course, although they don't read the whole thing. Sun Tzu, OTOH, is only studied by name in electives, according to the course catalogue. It may be true that The Art of War is more widely read in its entirety than On War, but that's likely due to the fact that The Art of War is exceedingly pithy, basically a glorified pamphlet, while On War is a sprawling tome.
Last edited by Stubbazubba on Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dimmy
1st Level
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:28 pm

Post by Dimmy »

virgil wrote:So. What. The rules can have it be fast enough for the anti-wargamer to take a piss (weird Venn diagram intersection, that guy), and that's not against anyone's sensibilities.
The "so what" is that fast rules are exactly the opposite of what people here seem to be aiming for. Whatever you come up with, this forum is going to call it "magic tea-party" because it's not detailed enough. And by the time you get it detailed enough, it's not an RPG at all anymore...it's a completely separate game. It's Warhammer; it's Axis and Allies; it's De Bellis Antiquitatus. Which, as you may recall, defeats the very purpose of this thread.
Somebody likes their intentionally obtuse hyperbole.
I mean, I'm not the one claiming RPGs should be able to model literally anything that happens in the Universe. Now that's being obtuse. And when you reach that level of obtuseness, the only possible response is hyperbole. (Or just playing GURPS.)
Dimmy
1st Level
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:28 pm

Post by Dimmy »

Chamomile wrote: Your argument here is that because you, personally, are too stupid to come up with a solution, it must be impossible and we should all give up. Really, when stated outright rather than merely implied, it pretty much defeats itself.
No. My argument is that you, personally, are too stupid to see that war-games and role-playing games are different things. As should be obvious -- even to stupid people like you and me -- from their having different names, indicating that they simulate different activities.

And insofar as I had anything to add, it was: because RPGs are played on the scale of individual PCs, massive set-piece battles are always going to boil down to individual encounters/duels/interactions. Which is exactly what happens anyway in all the stories fantasy RPGs are meant to emulate, from The Hobbit all the way back to The Illiad.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

Dimmy wrote: The "so what" is that fast rules are exactly the opposite of what people here seem to be aiming for. Whatever you come up with, this forum is going to call it "magic tea-party" because it's not detailed enough. And by the time you get it detailed enough, it's not an RPG at all anymore...it's a completely separate game. It's Warhammer; it's Axis and Allies; it's De Bellis Antiquitatus. Which, as you may recall, defeats the very purpose of this thread.
This is not true. Again, this is something we addressed for our heartbreaker and we used in a campaign. One player directed one army and the GM directed the other. Each 'round' covered in one roll the actions of an entire unit. Running through the entire battle took less time than a typical battle. Incidentally, neither side knew how the battle would end and the consequences absolutely did matter (remember, this campaign was about who to install on the throne).
Dimmy wrote: No. My argument is that you, personally, are too stupid to see that war-games and role-playing games are different things. As should be obvious -- even to stupid people like you and me -- from their having different names, indicating that they simulate different activities.

And insofar as I had anything to add, it was: because RPGs are played on the scale of individual PCs, massive set-piece battles are always going to boil down to individual encounters/duels/interactions. Which is exactly what happens anyway in all the stories fantasy RPGs are meant to emulate, from The Hobbit all the way back to The Illiad.
I think you're the only one that got the impression that anyone wanted to turn an RPG into a wargame. You've been pretty generous with calling other people idiots - you might want to reconsider.

Follow my logic here:
I) It is possible using an RPG mechanic to have a one-on-one or a one-on-several battle, or even a dozen versus a dozen.
2) It is actually possible, using those same rules to have 10,000 people fight 10,000 other people. However, the amount of rolling quickly becomes prohibitive.
3) Since the rules do support any number of foes fighting any other number of foes but the resolution system is very granular it would be nice to 'zoom out' and use just a few rolls to simulate the tens of thousands or rolls that you'd use if you resolved these actions at PC levels. In so much as the 'units' are undifferentiated you don't need to know if 'John' survived, just how many total casualties the unit took.

A mass-combat system isn't a wargame. It's a way to resolve the actions of a large number of people in a way that would be generally consistent with resolving all of those actions independently.

This is why our system used attack rolls with the 'too hit' number representing 50% hits and decreased or increased the number by 5% increments.

If you need at '15' to hit the opposing unit and you roll a '15', 50% of your squad hits. If you roll a 17, 60% hit; if you roll a 12, 35% hit. This allows for a single round to diverge pretty significantly from the average without rolling 10s of thousands of dice.
Dimmy
1st Level
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:28 pm

Post by Dimmy »

And while we're calling each other stupid...
FrankTrollman wrote:Units in the sense of "a unit is 10 troops" or "a unit is 100 troops" or something can't work. However many units you think the sweet spot of the game is, you will be confronted with scenarios in RPGs where the number of soldiers is orders of magnitude larger than that.
...this is BIG DUMB. Once combat starts involving thousands of participants, it's not just "small unit tactics, but more of them". There's an emergent property to fighting on that scale. I see a lot of people talking about Clausewitz and Sun Tzu here. Well, half the point of their manuals was to bash it into the reader's head that commanding an army has nothing to do with individual courage, or individual skill -- i.e., the stuff that PCs and detached squads care about -- but with fiddly tedious shit like logistics, and alliances, and constant practice drills, and consistently enforcing military regulations.

You're literally playing by different rules.

So you can have a game that simulates heroic individuals and detached squads...or you can have a game that simulates the whole Ptomainian Second Regiment of Foot. But you really do have to pick one.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

FrankTrollman wrote:No.

The point is that "MC makes something up" isn't a game at all. It's somebody telling you a story. It doesn't matter if they are in an adversarial or supportive role or some combination thereof, to the extent that the result of an action is just "The MC makes something up" you aren't actually playing a game.

Suggesting that the course of the battle should just be narrated is exactly that. It's a very weird thing to suggest or defend, because it's simply the complete abdication of designing or playing a game.
That's a really bizarre outlook that really doesn't reflect how most RPG sessions are actually played.

Just because the MC "makes something up" doesn't mean that it isn't a game. Indeed, the whole premise of a roleplaying game is that it is made-up - with the DM being generally charged with creating the world and the context while the players create individuals who can progress and change the said world. Otherwise every DM should never deviate from printed Adventures or Settings, while players are never allowed to come up and execute any brilliant plans but are straight jacketed into just two actions per round.

The reality is instead this: Rules exist to adjudicate the interaction between the DM-created elements and the player reactions to them. And that's because DMs and players will constantly be making things up as they go along, and some of these ideas will clash. The PCs want treasure, but the DM thinks they need to earn it. Hence, an encounter with a party of Orcs that the PCs have to defeat first - with die rolls and hit points and mechanics to adjudicate it.

My suggested rules - which is an encounter generation system that contributes to the tug-of-war of battle - does nothing to remove the adjudication. It is not the removal of rules in favor of pure narrative, because the encounters still have rules and their results still affect the battle.

Its point rather is much simpler: People are playing an RPG about individuals. Therefore the adjudication of great events around them must still focus on the said individual; rather than suddenly zooming out into a bird-eye view of the battlefield with a tactical wargame mini-game. Because as I've said - despite liking them and playing them a lot a wargame is a very different thing, and is much more about dehumanizing the individual rather than emphasizing them.

And again, just to be clear - I'm not saying that people shouldn't try if they really want to, which is why I'm not criticizing any specific ideas or implementations.

But if it's to be successful and not another set of largely unused and forgotten rules then it has to actually address this core disconnect between the two systems. Arguing with me or convincing yourself that I'm wrong isn't addressing that disconnect. You have to resolve this gameplay style disconnect - meaning watching how people actually play and react to sudden changes in genre or tone - and it will take much more than just mechanical tinkering or innovation.
Last edited by Zinegata on Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Dimmy wrote:I mean, I'm not the one claiming RPGs should be able to model literally anything that happens in the Universe.
You're claiming to be hyperbolic because you literally believe your hyperbolic claim to be true rather than hyperbolic? Man, that's impressive obtuseness.
Last edited by virgil on Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Dimmy
1st Level
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:28 pm

Post by Dimmy »

deaddmwalking wrote:This is not true. Again, this is something we addressed for our heartbreaker and we used in a campaign.
But you accomplished this by tacking on an entirely different game. You can call it a "homebrew" if you want, but when your homebrew reaches the point that it apparently requires a separate SRD...and its "rounds" have nothing to do with the original game's definition of "rounds"...and damage is being multiplied and divided by factors that are unrelated to anything in the original text...then that is, in fact, a different game. I'm sure it was a very good game, and I'm glad your players enjoyed it. But you're not saying "here's how to do the Battle of Austerlitz with D&D"; you're saying "play this other thing instead, and then go back to D&D".
You've been pretty generous with calling other people idiots - you might want to reconsider.
If Chamomile can't take it, he shouldn't have dished it out. The rest of us learned that lesson in kindergarten.
Follow my logic here:
Yes. Please. I am begging you.
1)It is possible using an RPG mechanic to have a one-on-one or a one-on-several battle, or even a dozen versus a dozen.
With you so far!
2) It is actually possible, using those same rules to have 10,000 people fight 10,000 other people. However, the amount of rolling quickly becomes prohibitive.
And this is where you, and Trollman et al., are incorrect. It is not possible. You think it's possible, and to be fair, that's a very reasonable mistake to make. All kinds of famous philosophers and thinkers have made this same mistake before you: imagining that just because you can put certain words together in a certain way, they must correspond to something real. "A circular square"; "green ideas sleeping furiously"; "mass-combat role-playing". But it's an optical illusion; it's a logical impossibility; it's a contradiction-in-terms. Like I said a few minutes ago -- and like Clausewitz and Sun Tzu and blah-blah-blah said, long before I came along -- small unit tactics are not the same thing as mass combat. I'm sincerely sorry that I can't seem to communicate that without being condescending as all hell...but it's still true. The very nature of RPGs means that they can't do what you want them to do. Every time you try, you end up with something that isn't satisfactory, or something that isn't an RPG, or something that fails on both fronts at once.

And not only is it impossible, it's unnecessary. Because -- one more time for the guys in the back! -- epic heroes solve their problems with epic duels. Or midnight cattle raids, or saving Private Ryan, or summoning angels, or riding BMX bikes, or...whatever. The kinds of activities that RPGs are already designed to simulate. So rejoice! This isn't actually a problem! O frabjous day!
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Hey, let's ignore Dimmy for this thread. They're obviously the opposite of helpful.
I'm still trying to think of how to handle mixed morale in attrition, and I began to consider an alternative. What if morale simply acted as conditional modifier when defeated? For example, your army fails its charge maneuver, so you retroactively reduce your kobolds' contribution to the effort, which makes the final accounting of the maneuver even worse.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Zinegata wrote: Just because the MC "makes something up" doesn't mean that it isn't a game. Indeed, the whole premise of a roleplaying game is that it is made-up - with the DM being generally charged with creating the world and the context while the players create individuals who can progress and change the said world. Otherwise every DM should never deviate from printed Adventures or Settings, while players are never allowed to come up and execute any brilliant plans but are straight jacketed into just two actions per round.
But that's exactly it. The players need to be able to progress and change the world. That is why the correct flow chart is this:
  • MC makes up starting inputs (example: "there is an Ogre").
  • The Players declare their actions and responses (example: "I attack the Ogre with my crossbow")
  • Abilities, rules, and die rolls determine how those actions affect the starting input (example: "The Ogre takes 12 damage and has 14 hit points remaining.")
That is a game. It's a game where technically the MC has unlimited power and could crush you at any time by declaring that there were five, seventy-five, or five thousand Ogres as needed, but it's still a game. The players still have meaningful impact and the numbers on their character sheets matter. They can make intelligent and reasonable decisions. They can guess that given normal die rolls their party can probably beat 3 Ogres and probably can't beat 13 Ogres.

The following is Apocalypse Fucking World:
  • MC makes up starting inputs (example: "there is an Ogre").
  • The Players declare their actions and responses (example: "I attack the Ogre with my crossbow")
  • MC makes up affects, continue from step one. (example: "The crossbow bolt sticks into the Ogre, and it bellows in rage!")
That's not a fucking game. The Ogre dies when the MC is bored of it, and the numbers on your character sheet mean nothing. The players can't make intelligent or reasonable choices because nothing fucking matters. Their chances against 3 Ogres or 33 Ogres are exactly the same, since it's just up to the MC's whim whether they win or lose either way.

Obviously you reject the second model for fighting an Ogre or for fighting six Ogres or 16 Ogres. Why do you think it's remotely acceptable to switch to that method for fighting sixty or six hundred Ogres? Why is it OK in your opinion to switch to the "system" of "your actions don't matter and the MC makes up whatever they feel like" on any scale that the players are attempting to act on? If the players want to take actions to materially affect the outcome of a battle or a war, why do you think it's remotely acceptable to tell them that they cannot?

Zinegata wrote:My suggested rules - which is an encounter generation system that contributes to the tug-of-war of battle - does nothing to remove the adjudication. It is not the removal of rules in favor of pure narrative, because the encounters still have rules and their results still affect the battle.

Its point rather is much simpler: People are playing an RPG about individuals. Therefore the adjudication of great events around them must still focus on the said individual; rather than suddenly zooming out into a bird-eye view of the battlefield with a tactical wargame mini-game. Because as I've said - despite liking them and playing them a lot a wargame is a very different thing, and is much more about dehumanizing the individual rather than emphasizing them.
You still have to have a system to determine the results of the battle or your "encounter" can't affect those results. If the battle results are "whatever the MC goddam feels like" then winning or losing your mini-encounter is meaningless. The results of the battle are "whatever the MCgoddam feels like +/- 1." But you know what? That doesn't change C! Adding or subtracting a fixed number from an arbitrary constant just leaves you with an arbitrary constant.
Virgil wrote:Hey, let's ignore Dimmy for this thread. They're obviously the opposite of helpful.
Agreed. There isn't even the pretense of being an honest actor there. Just fuckery all the way down.

-Username17
User avatar
Whipstitch
Prince
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Post by Whipstitch »

To me the clearest litmus test of whether a game is going to be tolerable is simply whether DM fuckery can at least occasionally be distinguished from normal play. In post-Gygax D&D you can cast Spider Climb and tell Climb checks to fuck off and while the DM can try to drop his dick on the table and fuck with you if he really wants to he can't really do so without giving away the game. He either obviously cheats and risks player revolt or at least accepts that some of the obstacles on the field mean dick diddly to your character because of the abilities you chose to activate. Mind you, things aren't perfect. Some subsystems are much easier to cheat at then others, but in many situations there are at least basic agreed upon terms of engagement to deal with in the first place and that can allow you to make informed decisions about what to do with your character instead of just bumbling around.

Whereas in games like Apocalypse World you've got a situation where it's unclear what DM/PC fuckery even looks like in the first place. It encourages you to honor the spirit of what people intend to accomplish but the result of virtually everything you do requires a DM judgment call of some sort in a setting that the group threw together on the fly in a short session. So I don't really have the foggiest idea of what tasks the "average" Apocalypse World denizen should reliably be accomplishing and you fucking don't either. Things are vaguely Mad Max-ish but otherwise it's super easy for everyone at the table to have wildly different expectations about what should be going on at any given time and that makes sessions far more fragile than AW fanboys are used to admitting. Rules don't just prevent disagreements by stopping your DM from being a bad meanie, they prevent disagreements by giving some clear common ground to start with in the first place.
Last edited by Whipstitch on Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
bears fall, everyone dies
User avatar
phlapjackage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

Post by phlapjackage »

Dimmy wrote:And not only is it impossible, it's unnecessary. Because -- one more time for the guys in the back! -- epic heroes solve their problems with epic duels. Or midnight cattle raids, or saving Private Ryan, or summoning angels, or riding BMX bikes, or...whatever.
...or epic...battles?
Whipstitch wrote:In post-Gygax D&D you can cast Spider Climb and tell Climb checks to fuck off and while the DM can try to drop his dick on the table and fuck with you if he really wants to he can't really do so without giving away the game. He either obviously cheats and risks player revolt or at least accepts that some of the obstacles on the field mean dick diddly to your character because of the abilities you chose to activate.
I think this is the easiest way to tell if a GM is someone you want to play with or not. Have a situation that the GM has spent a lot of time/effort setting up, then bypass/solve/win it with some unforeseen coolness. If the GM laughs with the rest of you, they're a keeper. If they get upset at you, it's time to leave...
Last edited by phlapjackage on Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Koumei: and if I wanted that, I'd take some mescaline and run into the park after watching a documentary about wasps.
PhoneLobster: DM : Mr Monkey doesn't like it. Eldritch : Mr Monkey can do what he is god damn told.
MGuy: The point is to normalize 'my' point of view. How the fuck do you think civil rights occurred? You think things got this way because people sat down and fucking waited for public opinion to change?
Post Reply